From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 19:52:37 GMT
Hi Andy,
>Hi Johnny,
>
>Your comment (11/03/2003): "I don't think Rorty is wrong about anything, I
>just think it obfuscates because it seems to put the focus too far down the
>line and doesn't highlight the dependence on history and morality. When he
>says
>truth is a cultural phenomen, it seems to denigrate truth, culture, and
>phenomenons all at the same time, when what is called for is great respect
>of these things."
>
>Andy: I have had similar reservations about Rorty in the past. However,
>the more I have read of him, the more convinced I am that he does have
>great respect for these things. Especially American culture. Rorty does
>highlight history and morality, in fact, much more so than most
>philosophers. I think the reservations you have don't come from Rorty, but
>rather from particular baggage each of us carry around about ideas like
>truth, morality and culture.
That's good to hear, I'd like to read what he says on this subject myself.
I recall raising this point once before, though, and Matt pretty much denied
that Pragmatism ought to call for giving greater respect to Morality as the
source of intersubjective agreement. He seemed to feel that Pragmatism
called for re-examining Morality from an outside perspective, now that we
know it is created by us, and changing it to what we decide is better by
creating fresh intersubjective agreement. In other words, not respecting
Morality at all as such.
>Johnny: It is right that morality and truth are maleable, but it
>is morality and truth that hold themselves together even as they change.
>Rorty seems to be saying that it is US that do that, and that makes people
>upset. The respect should be given to Morality, not us, as we are just one
>of Morality's creations.
>
>ANdy: Well, I don't think I can buy that. Saying that we are morality's
>creations gets back to the idea of a divine creator, which pragmatists
>think is irrelevant to truth and morality.
I don't know what you mean exactly by divine creator. I was referring to
Quality, or Expectation (Morality) itself, as a whole, as sort of an essence
or spin or process. I'm fine with calling that a divine creator when
talking with people who see it that way, and also fine with calling it
scientific determinism for people who see it that way, so in this discussion
let's just leave it out, there's no need to introduce the idea here. I'm
simply saying that we are what we are and believe what we believe because
that is the way Morality has played out up to this point. I didn't put in a
request to be born in Boston to my mother and father, that was the way
patterns interacted according to morality, to expectation. My thoughts and
beliefs are similarly beyond my control, they are created by Morality. I
can't just decide to believe something I don't believe.
> I addressed this in a little more detail in a post on 11/01/2003 to DMB
>(same thread as this). WHen you say morality and truth hold themselves
>together, you don't tell us how they do that.
They hold themselves together by our intersubjective agreement. But the
key is that they CREATE the intersubjective agreement to begin with. They
have created it, and will continue to create it, and it creates them.
There's no space 'between' morality and instersubjective agreement, there's
no 'outside' from which you can see quality creating intersubjective
agreement creating quality. To divorce these two and try to get between
them to hijack the process and create intersubjective agreement without
respect for morality is, well, blasphemous, or at least annoying.
>Pirsig says ideas are contained in language which is only possible if we
have a society. From a quote of Pirsig's I used earlier today in responding
to DMB, "Without society there is no intellect since there would be no one
to talk to anyone else and thus no language to speak and thus to contain the
idea." We do hold these ideas together through communication and agreement.
I don't see how morality and truth can do this on their own without our
help.
>
>Thanks,
>Andy
Well, as I wrote above, they do have our help, we are integral to the
process, simultaneous creations. It's no coincidence that we DO have
society and language, you know? We have to have those, because there are
ideas. Morality creates ideas as it expects to, and with them the society
and consciousness to contain the ideas, all at the same time.
I guess I'm starting to describe the Anthropic Universe principle (or a
variation on it perhaps, as I don't think I really understand what people
mean by that term). John Archibald Wheeler's phrase is "participatory
universe", which I like more. He says the universe is made of information,
of binary choices. "It From Bit" he calls it. That ties in with MoQ, if
value is understood as a binary up/down vote or choice as opposed to a
sliding scale of value. In both "It From Bit" and the MoQ, conscious
participants are necessary for anything to "matter".
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Crave some Miles Davis or Grateful Dead? Your old favorites are always
playing on MSN Radio Plus. Trial month free!
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 04 2003 - 20:10:04 GMT